Existing Users

PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotlands judiciary

Petitioner: Peter Cherbi

Status:

Lodged

Date Lodged:
07 December 2012

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.

25 June 2013: The Committee agreed to invite the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to give evidence at a future meeting. The Committee also agreed to write to Dr Kennedy Graham MP, New Zealand Parliament. Link to Official Report 25 June 2013 (499KB pdf)

17 September 2013: The Committee took evidence from Moi Ali, Judicial Complaints Reviewer. The Committee agreed to write to Dr Kennedy Graham MP, New Zealand Parliament, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Court Service and the Scottish Government. The Committee also agreed to consider the debate that took place during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 on section 23. Link to Official Report 17 September 2013 (597KB pdf)

28 October 2014: The Committee agreed to write to the Lord President and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer. The Committee also agreed to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to give evidence at a future meeting. Link to Official Report 28 October 2014

9 December 2014: The Committee took evidence from Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, and Kay McCorquodale, Civil Law and Legal Systems Division, Scottish Government. The Committee agreed to consider the petition again in the new year to reflect on the evidence received today, the annual report of the previous Judicial Complaints Reviewer and the new rules and guidance to be published by the Lord President. The Committee also agreed to write to the new Judicial Complaints Reviewer. Link to Official Report 9 December 2014

23 June 2015: The Committee took evidence from Gillian Thompson OBE, Judicial Complaints Reviewer. The Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Lord Gill and, when appointed, the new Lord President. Link to Official Report 23 June 2015

10 November 2015: The Committee took evidence from Rt Hon Lord Gill, former Lord President of the Court of Session. The Committee agreed to reflect on the evidence heard at a future meeting. Link to Official Report 10 November 2015

23 February 2016: The Committee agreed to include the petition in its legacy paper for consideration by the Session 5 Public Petitions Committee. In doing so, the Committee agreed to write to Professor Alan Paterson, University of Strathclyde. Link to Official Report 23 February 2016

22 December 2016: The Committee agreed to consider what further action to take on the petition once it has taken oral evidence from Professor Alan Paterson at its meeting on 19 January 2017. Link to Official Report 22 December 2016

30 March 2017: The Committee agreed to invite the Lord President to provide oral evidence at a future meeting. Official Report

29 June 2017: The Committee agreed to invite the petitioner to provide a written response to the Lord President’s evidence and to reflect on the evidence and the petitioner’s response at a future meeting. The Official Report 29 June 2017.

22 March 2018: The Committee agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out its view that a register of interests should be introduced and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, under Rule 15.6.2 of Standing Orders, for its consideration. Link to the Official Report 22 March 2018

As in many other walks of life where public servants are required to disclose their interests, financial or otherwise, members of the judiciary who are highly paid and enjoy positions of key importance within the country where their decisions have a significant impact on public life, should also be required to disclose all interests in a regularly updated published register of interests available for public inspection at all times.

Not before time, but what about the freemasons.

rab alexander

18:18 on 22 Nov 2012

Scots are historically supreme, and they elect their leader. The Court should derive it's power from the people. People are accountable to the Court, so the Court should be accountable to the people. It is only fair.

Richard Quinn

20:02 on 15 Nov 2012

This could be a stepping stone to make judges more accountable, as promised, but as quickly and sinisterly abandoned, by the former Justice Minister. At the end of April 2001, the Scottish Executive Justice Minister Jim Wallace made a long-overdue proposal that the exemption of Scots judges and sheriffs from being disciplined for "performance" and "behaviour" discrepancies was set to be removed because under the present system only two sheriffs have been dismissed in 30 years, while a Court of Session judge has never been removed from office. Supporting this petition will be a warning to the judiciary that the eyes of the public are as justified to appraise the integrity of their members as they are with the public.

William Burns

15:49 on 14 Nov 2012

It is incredible that the Scottish Government has not insisted that this must be in place.
It is even more incredible that the Government & Court have no intention to do so.
Are we the Public supposed to take the Judiciary's word of mouth promise that they are acting according to the law? If we are then we the Public are leaving ourselves open to Institutional abuse of power.
If the Scottish Public are to have any faith in the Judiciary in a climate when MP's, Police, the BBC and the Press have been shown to be liers then it must be MANDATORY for the judiciary to be able to show that they are fit for purpose and have characters beyond reproach as a minimum standard to be able to carry out their duties.
Experience has shown, if a group is resistant against transparency then they have something to hide.

Keyser Sauzey

15:40 on 13 Nov 2012

Judiciary should declare all financial interests, including income sources, directorships, shareholdings and investments. Also membership of any organisations and associations.

Brian Steele

0:56 on 13 Nov 2012

If MP & MSP's interests are to be made public so should Judges.

William Gordon

20:54 on 10 Nov 2012

There has been a welcome movement in many countries for greater transparency over the backgrounds of those in positions of considerable power and trust.
It is time that the judiciary were subject to such scrutiny, so as to avoid any possible suspicion over any conflict of interest issues

Robert Green

16:52 on 10 Nov 2012

NOT BEFORE TIME

ROBERT ALEXANDER

19:25 on 08 Nov 2012

We should know as much as possible about the interests (pecunary and fraternal) of our decision makers.
I would go further and call for a ban on judges holding directorships of companies that their decisions have affected. It cannot be right that a judge can waive prosecution of big businesses such as oil companies whose employees are killed by corporate manslaughter and then the judge goes on to the board of the oil company.

Tom Minogue

16:56 on 08 Nov 2012

Yes, I completely agree. If we, the people, are to continue to ask judges to make, on our behalf, huge decisions which affect our fellow citizens we have a duty to find out much more about them than we presently know. In matters of justice we can never have too much transparency.

This website is using cookies. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we’ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website.